Legal Definitions - CRIM. CON.

CRIM. CON. stands for CRIMINAL CONVERSATION.

Historically, Criminal Conversation was a civil lawsuit that a wronged spouse could bring against a third party who engaged in adultery with their husband or wife. Despite the word "criminal," this was not a criminal charge brought by the state, but rather a civil wrong (a "tort") allowing the injured spouse to seek financial compensation for damages such as emotional distress, loss of companionship, and harm to their reputation or marital property rights. This type of lawsuit has been abolished in most jurisdictions today.

• Example 1: In the late 1800s, Mr. Thompson discovered that his wife, Mrs. Thompson, had been having an affair with their neighbor, Mr. Davies. Feeling publicly humiliated and believing his marriage was irrevocably damaged, Mr. Thompson filed a Criminal Conversation lawsuit against Mr. Davies. He sought significant monetary damages for the emotional distress caused by the affair and the perceived destruction of his family unit and social standing.

  Explanation: This example illustrates how a husband, as the wronged spouse, could sue the third party (Mr. Davies) for engaging in adultery with his wife, seeking compensation for the harm inflicted upon his marriage and personal well-being, which was the core purpose of a Criminal Conversation claim.

• Example 2: Sarah and Mark were married for fifteen years when Mark began an affair with a colleague, Lisa. When Sarah uncovered the infidelity, she was devastated and felt her marriage was beyond repair. In a state that still recognizes a form of Criminal Conversation or a similar tort like "alienation of affection," Sarah might consider suing Lisa. Her claim would focus on Lisa's actions directly interfering with her marital relationship and causing her profound emotional suffering and the breakdown of her home life.

  Explanation: This scenario demonstrates a more modern (though rare) application where a spouse seeks legal recourse against the third party involved in an affair, arguing that the third party's actions directly caused the dissolution of their marriage and significant personal harm, aligning with the principles of Criminal Conversation.

• Example 3: David learned that his wife, Emily, had been unfaithful with her personal trainer, Alex. Enraged and heartbroken, David consulted an attorney, intending to sue Alex for breaking up his marriage. However, his attorney informed him that in their state, the tort of Criminal Conversation had been abolished decades ago. Therefore, David could not pursue a civil lawsuit against Alex for the affair itself, although he could proceed with a divorce from Emily.

  Explanation: This example highlights the current legal landscape for Criminal Conversation. It shows that while the emotional harm from infidelity remains, the legal mechanism to sue the third party for that specific wrong no longer exists in most places, underscoring its historical nature and widespread abolition.